Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for … Code: 8211 School Name: THE STUDIO SCHOOL CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August

School Code: 8211 School Name: THE STUDIO SCHOOL

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August 30, 2013) 1

Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for 2013-14

Organization Code: 0020 District Name: ADAMS 12 FIVE STAR SCHOOLS School Code: 8211 School Name: THE STUDIO SCHOOL SPF Year: 1 Year

Section I: Summary Information about the School

Directions: This section summarizes your school’s performance on the federal and state accountability measures in 2012-13. In the table below, CDE has pre-populated the school’s data in blue text. This data shows the school’s performance in meeting minimum federal and state accountability expectations. Most of the data are pulled from the official School Performance Framework (SPF). This summary should accompany your improvement plan.

Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability

Performance Indicators

Measures/ Metrics 2012-13 Federal and State

Expectations 2012-13 School Results Meets Expectations?

Academic Achievement (Status)

TCAP/CSAP, CoAltma/CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura

Description: % Proficient and Advanced (%P+A) in reading, writing, math and science

Expectation: %P+A is above the 50th percentile (from 2009-10 baseline) by using 1-year or 3-years of data

R

Elem MS HS Elem MS HS

Overall Rating for Academic Achievement:

Approaching

* Consult your School Performance Framework for the ratings for each

content area at each level.

71.65% - - 71.14%

- -

M 70.89% - - 69.33%

- -

W 53.52% - - 44.67%

- -

S 47.53% - - 44.9% - -

Academic Growth

Median Growth Percentile Description: Growth in TCAP/CSAP for reading, writing and math and growth on ACCESS/CELApro for English language proficiency.

Expectation: If school met adequate growth, MGP is at or above 45. If school did not meet adequate growth, MGP is at or above 55. For English language proficiency growth, there is no adequate growth for 2012-13. The expectation is an MGP at or above 50.

R

Median Adequate Growth Percentile (AGP)

Median Growth Percentile (MGP)

Overall Rating for Academic Growth:

Meets * Consult your School Performance Framework for the ratings for each

content area at each level.

Elem MS HS Elem MS HS

31 - - 53 - -

M 42 - - 42 - -

W 39 - - 46 - -

ELP - - - - - -



Student Performance Measures for State and Federal Accountability (cont.)

Performance Indicators

Measures/ Metrics 2012-13 Federal and State

Expectations 2012-13 School Results Meets Expectations?

Academic Growth Gaps

Median Growth Percentile Description: Growth for reading, writing and math by disaggregated groups.

Expectation: If disaggregated groups met adequate growth, MGP is at or above 45. If disaggregated groups did not meet adequate growth, MGP is at or above 55.

See your School Performance Framework for listing of median adequate growth expectations for your school’s disaggregated groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible, minority students, students with disabilities, English Language Learners (ELLs) and students below proficient.

See your School Performance Framework for listing of median growth by each disaggregated group.

Overall Rating for Growth Gaps:

Approaching

* Consult your School Performance Framework for the ratings for each student disaggregated group at each content area at each level.

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness

Graduation Rate Expectation: At 80% or above on the best of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.

At 80% or above Best of 4-year through 7- year Grad Rate

-

Overall Rating for

Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness: -

- using a - year grad rate

Disaggregated Graduation Rate Expectation: At 80% or above on the disaggregated group’s best of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year or 7-year graduation rate.

At 80% or above for each disaggregated group

See your School Performance Framework for listing of 4-year, 5-year, 6-year and 7-year graduation rates for disaggregated groups, including free/reduced lunch eligible, minority students, students with disabilities, and ELLs.

-

Dropout Rate

Expectation: At or below state average overall. - - -

Mean Colorado ACT Composite Score

Expectation: At or above state average. - - -



Accountability Status and Requirements for Improvement Plan

Summary of School Plan Timeline

October 15, 2013 The school has the option to submit the updated plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.

January 15, 2014 The school has the option to submit the updated plan through Tracker for public posting on SchoolView.org.

April 15, 2014

The UIP is due to CDE for public posting on April 15, 2014 through Tracker. Some program level reviews will occur at this same time. For required elements in the improvement plan, go to the Quality Criteria at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp.

Program Identification Process Identification for School Directions for Completing Improvement Plan

State Accountability

Plan Type Assignment

Plan type is assigned based on the school’s overall School Performance Framework score for the official year (achievement, growth, growth gaps, postsecondary and workforce readiness).

Performance The school meets or exceeds state expectations for attainment on the SPF performance indicators and is required to adopt and implement a Performance Plan. The plan must be submitted to CDE by April 15, 2014 to be posted on SchoolView.org.

ESEA and Grant Accountability

Title I Focus School

Title I school with a (1) low graduation rate (regardless of plan type), and/or (2) Turnaround or Priority Improvement plan type with either (or both) a) low-achieving disaggregated student groups (i.e., minority, ELL, IEP and FRL) or b) low disaggregated graduation rate. This is a three-year designation.

Not identified as a Title I Focus School

This school is not identified as a Focus School and does not need to meet those additional requirements.

Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG)

Competitive grant (1003g) for schools identified as 5% of lowest performing Title I or Title I eligible schools, eligible to implement one of four reform models as defined by the USDE.

Not awarded a TIG grant This school does not receive a TIG grant and does not need to meet those additional requirements.

Colorado Graduation Pathways Program (CGP)

The program supports the development of sustainable, replicable models for dropout prevention and recovery that improve interim indicators (attendance, behavior and course completion), reduce the dropout rate and increase the graduation rate for all students participating in the program.

Not a CGP Funded School This school does not receive funding from the CGP Program and does not need to meet these additional program requirements.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/uip/UIP_TrainingAndSupport_Resources.asp



Section II: Improvement Plan Information

Additional Information about the School

Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History

Related Grant Awards Has the school received a grant that supports the school’s improvement efforts? When was the grant awarded?

The Start Grant: Awarded October of 2013

School Support Team or Expedited Review

Has (or will) the school participated in an SST or Expedited Review? If so, when?

External Evaluator

Has the school partnered with an external evaluator to provide comprehensive evaluation? Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.

Improvement Plan Information

The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply):

State Accreditation Title I Focus School Tiered Intervention Grant (TIG) Colorado Graduation Pathways Program (CGP)

Other: ______________________________________________________________________________

School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)

1 Name and Title Sharla Chaves Kaczar, Principal

Email [email protected]

Phone 720-972-3623

Mailing Address 10604 Grant Drive, Northglenn, CO 80233

2 Name and Title Kari Cocozzella, Executive Director

Email [email protected]

Phone 720-972-6075

Mailing Address 5001 E. 128th Avenue, Thornton, CO 80241



Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification

This section corresponds with the “Evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. The main outcome is to construct a narrative that describes the process and results of the analysis of the data for your school. The analysis should justify the performance targets and actions proposed in Section IV. Two worksheets have been provided to help organize your data analysis for your narrative. This analysis section includes: identifying where the school did not at least meet minimum state and federal accountability expectations; describing progress toward targets for the prior school year; describing what performance data were used in the analysis of trends; identifying trends and priority performance challenges (negative trends); describing how performance challenges were prioritized; identifying the root causes of performance challenges; describing how the root causes were identified and verified and what data were used; and describing stakeholder involvement in the analysis. Additional guidance on how to engage in the data analysis process is provided in the Unified Improvement Planning Handbook. Data Narrative for School Directions: In the narrative, describe the process and results of the data analysis for the school, including (1) a description of the school and the process for data analysis, (2) a review of current performance, (3) trend analysis, (4) priority performance challenges and (5) root cause analysis. A description of the expected narrative sections are included below. The narrative should not take more than five pages. Two worksheets (#1 Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets and #2 Data Analysis) have been provided to organize the data referenced in the narrative.

Data Narrative for School

Description of School Setting and Process for Data Analysis: Provide a very brief description of the school to set the context for readers (e.g., demographics). Include the general process for developing the UIP and participants (e.g., SAC).

Review Current Performance: Review the SPF and local data. Document any areas where the school did not at least meet state/federal expectations. Consider the previous year’s progress toward the school’s targets. Identify the overall magnitude of the school’s performance challenges.

Trend Analysis: Provide a description of the trend analysis that includes at least three years of data (state and local data). Trend statements should be provided in the four performance indicator areas and by disaggregated groups. Trend statements should include the direction of the trend and a comparison (e.g., state expectations, state average) to indicate why the trend is notable.

Priority Performance Challenges: Identify notable trends (or a combination of trends) that are the highest priority to address (priority performance challenges). No more than 3-5 are recommended. Provide a rationale for why these challenges have been selected and address the magnitude of the school’s overall performance challenges.

Root Cause Analysis: Identify at least one root cause for every priority performance challenge. Root causes should address adult actions, be under the control of the school, and address the priority performance challenge(s). Provide evidence that the root cause was verified through the use of additional data. A description of the selection process for the corresponding major improvement strategies is encouraged.



Narrative:

Narrative:

In order to compose our data narrative, we completed the following steps: gathering and organizing relevant data, establishing priority performance challenges, and finally determining root causes. A description of our process follows. Since The Studio School started in 2008 with a K-2 student body, CSAP 2013 was our fourth year of CSAP/TCAP data.

School Summary: The Studio School is the arts integration magnet school in Adams 12. We currently have three hundred students in kindergarten through fifth. There is currently a 35% economic at-risk population. We have a very small second language population; however, 80% of our ELL students are FEP 4s and they are currently outperforming the district. We have a very diverse population of students that come from a variety of different neighborhoods in Adams 12. Students learn content through arts integration, so in essence art is the catalyst to learning. We believe information resonates with the students and they also have the ability to naturally transfer their knowledge to other experiences or disciplines. Students have the opportunity to build their arts skills by participating in a diverse Specials rotation that consists of Performing Arts, Music, Visual Arts (2D and 3D Ceramics). Students also have the opportunity to participate in a Strings elective outside of the classroom. In conclusion, The Studio School is an amazing place to learn and grow!

Gathering and Organizing Data:

We gathered and organized school data from CSAP/TCAP and district assessments.

The leadership team meets bi-monthly..

The SIT/SAC team analyzed data and suggested root causes. The SIT team is a combined force of teachers, parents, and community stakeholders.

Staff met to analyze data and identify priority needs and root causes.

The Leadership Team members worked with staff to identify goals and strategies.

Identifying Significant Trends: The leadership team met on a bimonthly basis and hold ongoing discussions about the school’s academic achievement and growth. The leadership team is composed of four teachers and one administrator. Two leadership team members sit on the school’s school improvement team (SIT/SAC). Leadership team members share vital information with the SIT/SAC team. SIT/SAC members provide feedback and discuss areas of need. The school improvement team is devised of two teachers, one administrator, and four parents/community stakeholders. However, all parents are welcome to participate at school improvement team meetings. After both teams identified and verified trends in our data, the members collaborated and prioritize needs. Establishing Priority Performance Challenges: The leadership team reconvened on 10-8-13 to review the trends that were identified and determine priority needs. Because the priority needs are based on the significant trends, it was determined that the leadership team could logically distill the trends down into the most pressing areas



of concern. Through the use of the Diagnostic Tree we identified possible root causes The leadership team created two overarching questions that would address the issue with writing achievement and growth, and also the trepidation of the school’s math Academic Growth Gaps. Achievement Priority Performance Challenge:

In 2012-2013, 44.67% of our students were Proficient/Advanced in Writing and we were below that state’s expectation of 53.52%. Academic Growth Gap Priority Performance Challenge:

In 2012-2013, there was a significant gap between Median Growth Percentiles (MGP) and Median Average Growth Percentiles(MAGP) with Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) students and Non-Free and Reduced Lunch (NFRL) in math.

Determining and Verifying Root Causes: Once the priority needs were established, they were presented to the entire staff including the process which was utilized to diagnose them. The staff was divided into two groups, each group being concerned with one priority performance challenge. The five leadership team members divided themselves and co-facilitated a discussion with their group of staff members. The leadership team facilitators then utilized the Five Whys Root Cause Analysis to dig deeper into the data to determine whether our root causes matched our priority needs. The leadership team members helped redirected comments of potential root causes that are out of our control. The teams came to an agreement on possible root causes. During the process staff members were extremely reflective and owned their areas of needed growth. After root causes were determined by the two groups of staff members, the entire staff reunited. Finally, the entire staff verified root causes and participated in a whole group discussion.

Improvement Strategies & Root Causes:

Major Improvement Strategy #1:

Develop an overall writing system to support instruction including understanding and implementation of curriculum, assessment, writing beliefs and student expectations (Teaching Learning Cycle) established throughout the school.

Root Causes:

Teachers lack a consistent school-wide belief system around best instructional practices in writing an ongoing, systematic professional development

and collaboration opportunities (grade level and vertically) to improve instruction.

Limited understanding of Kindergarten through 5th grade writing continuum and understanding of “exemplar” grade level writing. .

Limited use of day-to-day formative assessment to guide and inform instruction, as well as communicate data with students.


Develop a professional development plan that ensures the use of formative and summative assessments in all grade levels.



Root Causes:

Limited use of day to day formative and summative assessments to guide and form instruction.

Teachers have varied applications of articulating growth minded feedback with students and create shared goals.

Teaching staff lacks educator created rubrics and common assessments.


Develop and execute a differentiated and strategic professional development plan focused on grade level needs to improve academic growth and academic growth gaps.

Root Causes:

Kindergarten through fifth grade teachers have varied experiences of differentiating content for students below grade level and also above grade level

students.

Teachers have a varied understanding on how to differentiate math instruction to demonstrate growth with all ability groups.

Novice experience on creating thematic units that address multiple standards through arts integration.



Worksheet #1: Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets Directions: This chart supports analysis of progress made towards performance targets set for the 2012-13 school year (last year’s plan). While this worksheet should be included in your UIP, the main intent is to record your school’s reflections to help build your data narrative.

Performance Indicators Targets for 2012-13 school year

(Targets set in last year’s plan)

Performance in 2012-13? Was the target met? How close was the school to

meeting the target?

Brief reflection on why previous targets were met or not met.


Reading: 81% Proficient or Advanced Math: 75% Proficient or Advanced

Writing: 65% Proficient or Advanced

Science: 44.9% Proficient or Advanced

Goal Not Met – 71.14% P&A overall Goal Not Met – 69.33% P&A overall

Goal Not Met – 44.67% P&A overall

Goal will be determined this year.

The Studio School Academic Leadership Team analyzed CSAP/TCAP trend data for the previous four years. The data was presented to teachers and School Improvement Team. Teams identified

possible root causes for each of three subject areas: reading, writing and math. Over the past four years, writing professional development has not been consistently presented school-wide. Teachers sought out different resources and professional development to further their own

professional learning around writing instruction. This has led to a varied knowledge base around writing instruction. Teachers also have a variable understanding of how to utilize formative and summative assessment. Teachers are still in the formative stages of understanding the state’s new standards and have a variable understanding of how to teach through arts integration. Lastly, we are also learning how to extend our Proficient and Advanced students’ learning to demonstrate high growth.

Academic Growth

Reading: 55th Percentile

Math: 55th Percentile

Writing: 55th Percentile

ELP: 55th Percentile

Goal Not Met – 53

Goal Not Met – 42

Goal Not Met –46

N/A N<20


This is our first year to examine and address Academic Growth Gaps




Performance Indicators Targets for 2012-13 school year

(Targets set in last year’s plan)

Performance in 2012-13? Was the target met? How close was the school to

meeting the target?

Brief reflection on why previous targets were met or not met.

We look forward to implementing our UIP and achieving both our Academic and Growth targets.



Worksheet #2: Data Analysis Directions: This chart supports planning teams in recording and organizing observations about school-level data in preparation for writing the required data narrative. Planning teams should describe positive and negative trends for all of the four performance indicators using at least three years of data and then prioritize the performance challenges (based on notable trends) that the school will focus its efforts on improving. The root cause analysis and improvement planning efforts in the remainder of the plan should be aimed at addressing the identified priority performance challenge(s). A limited number of priority performance challenges is recommended (no more than 3-5); a performance challenge may apply to multiple performance indicators. At a minimum, priority performance challenges must be identified in any of the four performance indicator areas where minimum state and federal expectations were not met for accountability purposes. Furthermore, schools are encouraged to consider observations recorded in the “last year’s targets” worksheet. Finally, provide a brief description of the root cause analysis for any priority performance challenges. Root causes may apply to multiple priority performance challenges. You may add rows, as needed.

Performance Indicators Description of Notable Trends

(3 years of past state and local data)

Priority Performance Challenges

Root Causes


Reading TCAP% Proficient and Advanced Overall:

2011- 81.1%, 2012-78.1% & 2013-71.14%

CSAP % Proficient and Advanced by Grade Level:

Reading 2011 2012 2013

Grade 3 88 88 66%

Grade 4 74 70 71%

Grade 5 70.73 74%

Goal for the 2013-2014-2013 School Year 75% Proficient and Advanced

None Identified






Root Causes

Math TCAP% Proficient and Advanced Overall:

2011-75.2 %, 2012-73%, 2013-69%

CSAP/TCAP % Proficient and Advanced by Grade Level:

Math 2011 2012 2013

Grade 3 75% 92.50% 72%

Grade 4 76% 64% 83%

Grade 5 54% 52%

The table indicates that 2011(3rd grade) cohort demonstrated downward trend in 4th grade, and then experienced a significant drop in 5th grade at 52% P & A. The table also indicates that 3rd grade has consistently outperformed the state.

Goal for the 2013-2014 School Year 75% Proficient and Advanced

Writing

None identified






Root Causes

TCAP% Proficient and Advanced Overall:

2011-54.4%, 2012-52.63% 2013-44.67%

CSAP/TCAP % Proficient and Advanced by Grade Level:

Writing 2011 2012 2013

Grade 3 53.19% 67.50% 34%

Grade 4 52.38% 38.% 52%

Grade 5 48.78% 49%

The table indicates that 2011 (3rd grade) cohort demonstrate downward trend from 3rd to 4th and then increased from 38% to 49% from 4th to 5th grade. The table also identifies that 4th grade increased their proficient and advance percentage by 14 percentage points, and the 4th grade cohort increased P/A by 11%. Writing scores have been consistently below the state for the last three years. With further strand analysis, the leadership team discovered that intermediate students struggle with “writing organization” compared to other writing concepts.


In 2012-2013, 44.67% of our students were Proficient/Advanced in Writing and we were below that state’s expectation of 53.52%.

Teachers lack a consistent school-wide

belief system around best instructional

practices in writing an ongoing, systematic

professional development and collaboration

opportunities (grade level and vertically) to

improve instruction.

Limited understanding of Kindergarten

through 5th grade writing continuum and

understanding of “exemplar” grade level

writing. .

Limited use of day-to-day formative

assessment to guide and inform instruction,

as well as communicate data with students.






Root Causes

Science:

TCAP% Proficient and Advanced Overall:

2012-32.5%, 2013-44.9%







Root Causes

Academic Growth

Reading Overall Median Growth Percentiles:

2011-37, 2012-34, 2013-53

The Studio School

Grade 04 Reading

SubGroup N Growth Percentile

(current year)

Low Growth

Typical Growth

High Growth

2012Grade 04 50 52% 26% 22.00%

2013 Grade 04 48 27% 31 % 42% 50 52.00% 26.00% 22.00%

Grade 05 Reading


(current year)

Low Growth

Typical Growth

High Growth

2012--Grade 05 41 61.00% 29.00% 10.00%

2013--Grade 05 49 43% 35% 22%

Low Growth = 1st - 34th Percentile, Typical Growth = 35th to 65th Percentile, High Growth = 66th to 99th Percentile

Goal for the 2013-2014School Year 55 Percentile

None Identified

None Identified






Root Causes

The Studio School

Writing

Overall Median Growth Percentiles:

2011-38, 2012-30, 2013-46

Sub Group

N Growth Percentile

(current

year)

Low Growt

h

Typical Growth

High Growth

2012--Grade 04

50 58.00% 30.00% 12.00%

2012--Grade 05

41 56.00% 24.00% 20.00%

2013--Grade 04

48 42.00% 33.00% 25.00%

2013--Grade 05

49 41.00% 35.00% 24.00%


Goal for the 2013-2014 School Year 55 Percentile






Root Causes

The Studio School

Math

Overall Median Growth Percentiles:

2011-51, 2012-39, 2013-42-


(current year)

Low Growth

Typical Growth

High Growth

2012--Grade 04

50 40.00% 34.00% 26.00%

2012--Grade 05

41 56.00% 32.00% 12.00%

2013--Grade 04

48 42.00% 31.00% 27.00%

2013--Grade 05

49 45.00% 39.00% 16.00%


Goal for the 2013-2014 School Year 55 Percentile

None

Identified






Root Causes


TCAP Reading Median Growth Percentiles

2011 2012 2013

Minority/Non

-/37 34/29 54/50

FRL/Non -/31 36/30 54/49

IEP/Non -/39 -/32 -/52

ELL/Non -/36 -/30 -/52

Girls/Boys 40/- 29/37 48/59

I






Root Causes

TCAP Math Median Growth Percentiles

2011 2012 2013

Minority/Non -/51 26/41 42/41

FRL/Non -/53 39/36 47/35

IEP/Non -/51 -/39 -/42

ELL/Non -/50 -/37 -/41

Girls/Boys 51/- 40/33 43/41

Further data analysis demonstrates that 58% of

students who scored Proficient or higher made low

In 2012-2013 there was a significant gap between Median Growth Percentiles (MGP) and Median Average Growth Percentiles (MAGP) with Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) students and Non Free and Reduced Lunch (NFRL) in math.

.

Kindergarten through fifth grade teachers

have varied experiences of differentiating

content for students below grade level and

also above grade level students.

Teachers have a varied understanding on

how to differentiate math instruction to

demonstrate growth with all ability groups.

Novice experience on creating thematic

units that address multiple standards

through arts integration.






Root Causes

growth.

For the past 2 out of 3 years FRL students have scored Higher than below Non FRL students. In 2013, our FRL students out performed non FRL students by 12 MGPs.

In 2012-2013 Free & Reduced Lunch (FRL) students

have outperformed Non Free & Reduced Lunch

(Non FRL) students by 12 MGPs in math. FRL students

were at the 47th percentile while Non FRL were at the 35

Percentile in math for Academic Growth Gaps.

TCAP Writing Median Growth Percentiles

2011 2012 2013

Minority/Non -/36 36/20 44/47

FRL/Non -/45 17/34 43/46

IEP/Non -/36 -/30 -/47

ELL/Non -/33 -/30 -/47

Girls/Boys 38/- 31/24 48/44






Root Causes




Section IV: Action Plan(s)

This section addresses the “Plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First, identify annual performance targets and the interim measures. This will be documented in the required School Target Setting Form on the next page. Then move into action planning, which should be captured in the Action Planning Form. School Target Setting Form Directions: Complete the worksheet below. While schools may set targets for all performance indicators, at a minimum, they must set targets for those priority performance challenges identified in Section III (e.g., by disaggregated student groups, grade levels, subject areas). Schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, and postsecondary and workforce readiness. At a minimum, schools should set targets for each of the performance indicators where state expectations are not met; targets should also be connected to prioritized performance challenges. Consider last year’s targets (see Worksheet #1) and whether adjustments need to be made. For each annual performance target, identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least quarterly during the school year.



School Target Setting Form

Performance Indicators Measures/ Metrics


Annual Performance Targets Interim Measures for

2013-14 Major Improvement

Strategy 2013-14 2014-15

Academic Achievement

(Status)

TCAP/CSAP, CoAlt/CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura

R

M

W

In 2012-2013, 44.67% of our students were Proficient/Advanced in Writing and we were below that state’s expectation of 53.52%.

65% Proficient and Advanced Overall

70% Proficient and Advanced Overall

Formal Writing Assessments

September 2013

January 2014

May 2014

Informal Writing Assessments per unit of study.




Develop a professional development plan that ensures the use of formative and summative assessments in all grade levels.



S

Academic Growth

Median Growth Percentile (TCAP/CSAP & ACCESS)

R

M

W

ELP


Median Growth Percentile

R

M

In 2012-2013 there was a significant gap between Median Growth Percentiles (MG) and Median Average Growth Percentiles (MAGP) with Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) students and Non Free and Reduced Lunch (NFRL) in math.

.

Median Growth Percentile will be at the 50th Percentile for Free/Reduced Lunch

Median Growth Percentile will be at the 50th Percentile for Non Free/Reduced Lunch

Median Growth Percentile will be at the 55th Percentile for Free/Reduced Lunch

Median Growth Percentile will be at the 55th Percentile for Non Free/Reduced Lunch

Reading TCAP

Reading MAP

Math TCAP

Math MAP

Major Improvement Strategy #2: Develop a professional development plan that ensures the use of formative and summative assessments in all grade levels. Major Improvement Strategy #3: Develop and execute a differentiated and strategic professional development plan focused on grade level needs to improve academic achievement and academic growth gaps.

W




Graduation Rate

Disaggregated Grad Rate

Dropout Rate

Mean CO ACT



Action Planning Form for 2013-14 and 2014-15 Directions: Identify the major improvement strategy(s) for 2013-14 and 2014-15 that will address the root causes determined in Section III. For each major improvement strategy, identify the root cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then, indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart below, provide details about key action steps necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include the action steps that will be taken to implement the major improvement strategy, a general timeline, resources that will be used to implement the actions, and implementation benchmarks. Additional rows for action steps may be added. While the template provides space for three major improvement strategies, additional major improvement strategies may also be added. To keep the work manageable, however, it is recommended that schools focus on no more than 3 to 5 major improvement strategies.



Root Cause(s) Addressed:

Teachers lack a consistent school-wide belief system around best instructional practices in writing an ongoing, systematic professional development and

collaboration opportunities (grade level and vertically) to improve instruction.

Limited understanding of Kindergarten through 5th grade writing continuum and understanding of “exemplar” grade level writing. .

Limited use of day-to-day formative assessment to guide and inform instruction, as well as communicate data with students.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):


Other: ______________________________________________________________________________

Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy

Timeline Key Personnel* Resources

(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)

Implementation Benchmarks

Status of Action Step* (e.g.,

completed, in progress, not begun)

Leadership team and administration will meet to create to develop professional development plan for 2012-2013

August/September Leadership Team Release Day for Teachers

$700.00

Attendance and Meeting Minutes

In Progress



Staff will work in vertical teams to ensure alignment of writing standards and continuum of writing through grades K-5. We will examine what organization looks like from grade to grade. We will assess student writing during professional development.

2013-2014 School Year

Certified Staff and Administration

Early Release Days and District In-Service Days.

Attendance and Meeting Minutes

In Progress

Certified staff will participate in grading writing samples together three times a year formally to ensure grading validity.

Formal Writing Samples:

September 2013

January 2014

May 2014


Early Release Days and District In-Service Days.

Data of graded writing samples

In Progress

Utilize the 1st Early Release day each month of the school year for staff professional development focused on school-wide writing belief system



Early Release Attendance, agendas, and work samples from professional development

In Progress

Staff Development training and ongoing writing residency support from an outside consultant (The Imagination Makers Theater Company), including writing for authentic audiences and purposes with intent to publish.


Imagination Makers $3,000.00 Attendance, Meeting Minutes, and Arts Matters workbook

In Progress

Teachers utilize technology integration (IPads) to provide students authentic opportunities to share their writing.


IPads $8,000.00 (1 per teacher) Student Checklist/Teacher Grade Book

In progress

Certified Staff will study the Lucy Calkins materials, the district’s Units of Studies, The Common Core, and arts integration precepts to support their monthly writing instruction.


Leadership Team, Certified Staff, and district coaches, and Administration.

$2,000 for Lucy Calkins materials

Attendance and Meeting Minutes, grade level writing, and writing plans.

In Progress



* Note: These two columns are not required to meet state or federal accountability requirements, though completion is encouraged. “Status of Action Step” may be required for certain grants.



Major Improvement Strategy #2: Develop a professional development plan that ensures the use of formative and summative assessments in all grade levels. Root Cause(s) Addressed:

Limited use of day to day formative and summative assessments to guide and form instruction.

Teachers have varied applications of articulating growth minded feedback with students and create shared goals.

Teaching staff lacks educator created rubrics and common assessments.



Other: ______________________________________________________________________________

Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy

Timeline Key Personnel* Resources

(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)

Implementation Benchmarks

Status of Action Step* (e.g., completed,

in progress, not begun)

Teachers will use of Formative Assessment Guide From Theory to Practice by Dave Bahna to support teaching.

Leadership Team will review Embedded Formative Assessment by Dylan Wiliam.

August 2013-May 2014

Staff $1,000.00 Teacher created assessments and rubrics

Student data reports

In Progress

Teachers utilize technology integration (IPads) to collect student data.


IPads $8,000.00 (1 per teacher) Student Checklist/Teacher Grade Book

In Progress

Incorporation of Formative Assessment Strategies for all content areas to set goals and monitor student progress.


Leadership Team, Outside Consultants, Administration.

$500.00-$1,000 Ongoing administrator walkthroughs

Ongoing formal observations

In Progress

Provide staff training on formative and summative assessments within reading, math, and writing.

ERDs throughout the school year

District Academic Coaches

N/A Attendance of training sessions

In Progress






Major Improvement Strategy #3: Develop and execute a differentiated and strategic professional development plan focused on grade level needs to improve academic achievement and growth . Root Cause(s) Addressed:

Kindergarten through fifth grade teachers have varied experiences of differentiating content for students below grade level and also above grade level

students.

Teachers have a varied understanding on how to differentiate math instruction to demonstrate growth with all ability groups.

Novice experience on creating thematic units that address multiple standards through arts integration.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Other: ______________________________________________________________________________

Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement

Strategy

Timeline Key Personnel*

Resources (Amount and Source: federal,

state, and/or local) Implementation Benchmarks

Status of Action Step* (e.g.,

completed, in progress, not begun) 2013-14 2014-15

K-3rd Grade teachers will participate in a literacy professional development supported by the district.

1 ERD a month

DLT, Ashley VonHatten, Vicki Murray and K-3 teachers, and Leadership Team

Literacy Binders ($200.00)

Agendas, minutes and protocols

In Progress

4-5 Grade teachers will implement a guided math block to support student learning at all levels.

“Challenge Math”, Exemplars, and Everyday Math Extensions to extend high achieving students growth.

The school’s learning services teacher will also implement Number Worlds this year to

1 ERD a month

Roger Dowd GT, Mike Meyers, 4-5 teachers, Sharla Kaczar, Sherri Calcagno, Danielle Nix and Leadership Team

Challenge Math Materials

Math Exemplar CD $700.00

Number Worlds (purchased by district)

Agendas, minutes, attendance of training/work sessions, and student data.

In Progress



support students with learning disabilities.

Classroom teachers will utilize formative assessments and standardized testing results to develop flexible groupings for math lessons and units.

Performing arts team and visual artist will collaborate with classroom teachers to support differentiation through arts integration.

Ongoing Specials Team, Leadership Team, The Imagination Makers, Colorado Conservatory of Dance, and Think 360

Planning days ($1,000)

Artist in Residencies ($2,000)

Collaborative plans, arts integration celebration, student data through thematic assessments.

In-Progress


Section V: Appendices

Some schools will need to provide additional forms to document accountability or grant requirements:

Additional Requirements for Turnaround Status Under State Accountability (Required)

Tiered Intervention Grantee (TIG) (Required)

Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Schools for … Code: 8211 School Name: THE STUDIO SCHOOL CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 5.2 -- Last Updated: August

Documents